About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
speaking to then president bill clinton back in 1994 about the bosnian war, which at that point was going into its third year and had claimed tens of thousands of lives. >> as leader of the free world, as leader of the only superpower, why has it taken you, the united states, so long to articulate a policy on bosnia? why in the absence of a policy have you allowed the u.s. and the west to be held hostage to those who do have a clear policy, the bosnian serbs, and do you not think that the constant flip-flops of your administration on the issue of bosnia sets a very dangerous precedent and would lead, other strong people, to take you less seriously than you would like to be taken? >> no, but speeches like that make them take me less seriously than i'd like to be taken. there have been no constant flip-flops, madam. >> so is this a question that we should be asking the obama administration about syria? >> well, you remember, randi, that president clinton was really angry with me when i was asking that question from sarajevo. the fact of the matter is the question didn't prompt intervention
clinton and state counselors have been engaging for some time, and that is can we get a better answer than we have had in the past two how a new rise in power comes to the international system. and can we do so without running significant risks or indeed fall into conflict. >> thanks. please. >> i agree with everything the undersecretary has said your, and, in fact, admiral sam locklear underscore those pushes a couple days ago in australia. talking about engagement and that strategic trust. but it's interesting that the chinese tend to look at the american, ma asia pacific give it a sort of a continuing strategy. which speaks to the inability to really communicate with strategic effect. and i think you touched, steve, on a very important piece which was a seniority complex and if i can put it that way. china has felt that they were abused by major powers to the 19th century and well into the 20 century, and that has an interesting counterbalance, which is a seemed a bit of a superiority complex about the solutions that they are building on how china images as a global power. the disconten
revolutionary guard corps. hillary clinton a couple years ago said iran was edging close league to be in the military to peter should. i wonder when marina talks about this long history of abuse of political prisoners by the agents of that abuse had changed over this 20, 30 year span and whether the increased role has an impact on the human rights landscape. is the power of military know me making matters worse? >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. and thanks to ftd for arranging a panel discussion about human rights. it's rather interesting that in the city in washington d.c., most panels about iran are about the nuclear program. that is almost nothing that the human rights program. the iranian audience in the reading public because it means you care about your own security. you care about the implications of the islamic republic coming into an armed state. what happens in iran does not really matter to washington. this is the signal washington has been sending to iran and i think this panel and ftd's initiative to make human rights issue a more important issue on agen
the increasing power and ubiquity of the islamic revolutionary guard corps and hillary clinton, a couple of years ago, said that iran was edging closer to being a military dictatorship. when marina talks about the long history of abuse of political prisoners, wonder whether the agents of that abuse have changed over these 20-30 years and whether the increased role of the irgc has an impact on the human rights landscape. has the power of the military and i ran things worse? >> thank you very much ladies and gentlemen and thanks for arranging this panel discussion about human rights. it is rather interesting that in this city, washington, d.c., most panels about iran are about the nuclear program. there's almost nothing about human rights. this sends a terrible signal to the iranian public. it means that you care about your own security. you care about the implications of the islamic republic becoming a nuclear-armed state but what happens in iran does not really matter to the washington elite. this is the signal washington has been sending to iran and i think this panel and the initiative to make
the rich. >> clayton: and questions whether we'd go back to the clinton era, 37 somewhere? at the end of the day the point what mr. forbes was saying, if the president does nothing, yes, the taxes go back up to those previous rates and also, defense gets cuts. forget about, we're not talking see questions station much, b -- sequestration? >> did you see what's happening in california, maybe that should be a barometer. tax increases in the state of california and raise revenue and look at the revenues have not gone up. >> a lot of republicans see california and americans, many democrats see california as a cautionary tale. what california has done and interesting and got then them ooh into a pickle. they have the battle initiatives where voters can go in themselves and vote for what they want and these all cost money. >> it all costs money. >> yeah, this is a mistake of california, right? since the late 70's, when these ballot provisions started going through, yes, you had a number of them. i was out there when was unfoldi unfolding, a number passed and californias voted to increase th
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)